That having now been said, I don't find this review very relevant. I would really like it if you could convince me more that Baldur's Gate whatever is something that I should be interested in reading about.

Just kidding.

Actually, I really like this review. I like the fact that you talked about what's wrong with the game through the interesting approach of telling us why playing as a Barbarian sucked. It kind of tells a story about your gaming experience and that kept me very interested throughout the review.

There's some distracting waffling, such as saying that you didn't have a lot of fun but you'd like to try it again, which gives the sense that you don't know what to think about the game.

Oh, and did you mean this sentence to read like this?

"... they open the second by being captured by Mordoc, a sinister vampire boasting both a really deep voice and a plan to take over the world."

Do they open the gate by being captured? I'm confused...

Note to gamers: when someone shoots you in the face, they aren't "gay." They are "psychopathic."

Despite your open wish for my demise, I will accept your apology. I'll also say that while the review convincingly covers the game's basic, I feel the focus of the first half is all on a story that, really, is just there to give you an excuse to slaughter more things (that you pretend is me) and then, when the review progresses, that focus is lost and you become quite vague. I would like to hear more on the other classes, what they actually are, an what their abilities are and how they all ineract.

Not sure how to make a sig? While logged into your account, you can edit it and your other public and private information from the Settings page.

Some good advice there from Zipp and my friend/nemesis Stuffl. In the interest of RotW fairness, I will act on nothing until the results are up.

Zipp: I meant to say "second game" for that one sentence you quoted. And I'll emphasize that I was trying to say that I've played games like this, such as the first BG: DA (on two systems!...PROTIP: NEVER play the GBA port) and Champions of Norrath, on the PS2 and know they're fun with good characters, but not so fun with one-dimensional hack/slash dudes, at least while going solo.

Stuffl: Very good point. I won't stretch out the review by detailing every character, but I will use the part where I mention how the barbarian makes a good partner for a character like the necromancer to detail that character's skills in some detail.

This seems like as good a place as any to plug the modern reimagining of the Bard's Tale (2004 I think it was) for a solid single player experience using the same mechanics as the Dark Alliances, the Norraths etc. It had me in stitches, at least. *shrug*

Opening sentence: I do not like this 3 adverbs as a way of introduction! It's like trying to emphasize your understatedness. Part of this may be style, but if you submit a review on my RotW, you may know I find this style potentially unpalatable. If you don't worry who is writing RotW when you write something, that is also good, and I'd be flattered if you may be using me as a sounding board to get it right. But I still reserve my right to frown vaguely at any individual instances that upset me!

And overall I did have to look for instances. The barbarian's story with your own cautionary tale--why it worked but still wasn't fun--is good. Perhaps it's a bit too reductionist, but it shows up the fatigue I have in a lot of RPGs where the story isn't really advancing and the enemies can be swapped.

So this review does some neat stuff, even if I think you're too dogmatically linked to the slightly slaphappy presentation and style which feels like it loses control of itself. While it's certainly fun, perhaps some more sober observation earlier might've kept it from running away at times. Otherwise it feels like someone who laughs at his own jokes a bit too much, and you stop caring whether the jokes are good. I think it's interesting you had the time to see how fights would be more rewarding with other classes and you realized that. My preference would be for more of that. And I think maybe you could justify the 7 a bit better--it sounds like there are a lot of standard AD&D components, but you believe the game works for all that, though I'm not entirely sure why. I'm curious to know. You have enough funny bits that more serious stuff won't seem dry.

My principal said, 'Emo, Emo, Emo.'
I said 'I'm the one in the middle, you lousy drunk!'
-- Emo Phillips

Thank you for that critique, ASchultz. Very in-depth and helpful to me. To address a couple of points.

1. When writing a review, I really don't consider who may be judging it. If it's a big Alphaolympic/Summer Team Tourney sort of thing, I might agonize over how I phrase things more, but I tend to find my voice for that particular game and run with it, regardless of who will be determining the worth of the review for a contest.

2. I completely understand what you're saying with the (can't remember your exact words) "think you're funnier than you actually are" bit. That may be my biggest weakness AND strength. I throw a lot of abstract shit into my reviews that can only be described as "Rob has a buzz (or has had so many that he's really kinda buzzed all the time regardless) and thought this was a kickass line!" sort of deal. They work for others a good amount of time, but don't work a decent amount of time, as well. It's kind of my personal style that I'm essentially conversing informally with the reader, which really does lead to a sort of flippant, "look how witty I am" sort of style.